Appeal No. 2004-0779
Application No. 09/790,185 Page 4
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed
April 21, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed
January 28, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed June 17,
2003) for appellants' arguments thereagainst6. Only those
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37
CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
6 Appellants arguments (brief, pages 4-10) regarding the examiner's
objections to the title, drawings and formalities in the specification are
misplaced as these issued are petitionable and not appealable. See Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we will not
review these issues raised by the appellants.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007